Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 29 references

Geometry resolved atomic oxygen risk assessment for very low earth orbit spacecraft

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Very low Earth orbit atomic oxygen durability is a geometry-, material-, and orbit-dependent design problem, not a scalar environmental load.

desk verdict Useful and honest engineering case study, but the headline internal-PCB fluence numbers are the least trustworthy outputs because the same ballistic ray tracer demonstrably misses wake AO. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.25525 v1 pith:XMYAKLNC submitted 2026-07-28 physics.optics astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM

Gun Hi Won , Hyun Jung Kim , SongYi Park , ChangWon Seo , Eunji Lee , SeongSik Yoon This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticsastro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM
keywords verylowEarthorbitatomicoxygenVLEOspacecrafterosionyieldsurfacefluenceatmosphericwindsraytracingLTAN
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to establish that atomic oxygen (AO) durability for very low Earth orbit (VLEO) spacecraft must be assessed surface by surface, not with orbit-averaged fluence. It couples an empirical atmosphere model, a wind model, and a ray-tracing tool to simulate one year in a 350 km Sun-synchronous orbit under two local times and four geometries. The simulations show a ram-facing surface accumulates 6.9–7.5 × 10²¹ atoms/cm² per year, while side and zenith/nadir surfaces get only 3–5% of that; yet the CFRP zenith panel is predicted to erode 15.1–16.2 µm/year because its erosion yield is much higher. AO also enters antenna housing openings and reaches internal printed circuit boards. The central message: component risk ranking reverses when geometry and material response are combined.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is ballistic ray-tracing transport of atomic oxygen over a 3D spacecraft mesh, fed by an empirical atmospheric density model and a horizontal wind model. Each ray carries an ambient AO particle along its incident direction; surfaces are shadowed when the line of sight is blocked, and multiple reflections are included. This converts an orbit-averaged flux into per-surface and per-node fluence maps, revealing shielding, wedge shadowing, and cavity penetration. The same ballistic assumption is what fails on the wake side: with no scattering, wake-facing surfaces get zero fluence, whereas flight data show 1.9% of ram—an internal check on where the model’s predictions a

What would settle it

Place fluence sensors on the wake side and inside a vented electronics box of a VLEO spacecraft and compare measured annual fluence with ray-tracing predictions; if wake or internal fluence exceeds predicted values by much more than the 1.9% wake discrepancy already seen, the shielding and cavity-penetration conclusions need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Central claim: VLEO atomic oxygen risk is anisotropic and material-specific; it must be assessed by coupling orbit, winds, geometry, and erosion yield. At 350 km Sun-synchronous orbit, the ram face receives 6.9–7.5 × 10²¹ atoms/cm²/year; side and zenith/nadir faces receive only 3–5% of that. Yet the low-fluence CFRP zenith panel erodes 15.1–16.2 µm/year because its erosion yield far exceeds that of the multilayer-insulation side panels. Wedge appendages produce an order-of-magnitude fluence variation; housing openings admit AO to internal PCBs, up to 4.0 × 10¹⁹ atoms/cm²/year. Atmospheric winds cause 10–20% side asymmetry. The model matches MISSE-8 zenith/ram ratio (~4%) but predicts zero wa

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that ballistic ray tracing adequately represents AO transport into shadowed and internal regions; the paper’s own MISSE-8 comparison shows the model gives zero wake fluence while flight data show 1.9% of ram.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Orbit-averaged AO fluence is insufficient for design: surface-resolved fluence varies by more than a factor of 20 between ram and zenith/nadir faces.
  • Material selection can override fluence ranking: the CFRP zenith panel’s high erosion yield makes it the largest erosion risk (15–16 µm/year) despite receiving only ~4% of ram fluence.
  • Structural geometry redistributes AO: wedge appendages create roughly an order-of-magnitude fluence gradient, and housing openings allow AO to reach internal electronics.
  • LTAN choice matters: the 12:00 node yields 8–10% higher AO fluence than 06:00, altering surface lifetime estimates.
  • Atmospheric winds should be included: HWM07 winds produce 10–20% side-panel asymmetry, while disabling winds removes it.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the same ballistic ray transport predicts zero wake fluence while flight data show 1.9%, the internal PCB fluence and shadowed-region values are likely lower bounds; a scattering or diffusion contribution could raise them.
  • The wedge’s one-order-of-magnitude fluence gradient implies that instrument and radiator placement on a VLEO bus should be co-designed with local AO maps, not just global material selection.
  • If low-fluence surfaces can dominate erosion via erosion yield, then uncertainty in yield values is as important as uncertainty in fluence models; erosion-depth numbers should be treated as parametric, not point predictions.
  • A VLEO flight experiment with paired fluence sensors on ram, wake, zenith, and inside a vented electronics box could directly test the ballistic-assumption limitation and calibrate internal-cavity transport.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a geometry-resolved atomic oxygen (AO) risk assessment for a 350 km Sun-synchronous VLEO orbit by coupling NRLMSISE-00 atmospheric densities, HWM07 winds, and the SYSTEMA ATOMOX ray-tracing tool. Four configurations are studied: a rectangular baseline bus, a wedge-modified bus, and H- and V-polarized SAR antenna sub-arrays, under LTAN 06:00 and LTAN 12:00 conditions. The reported annual results include ram fluences of 6.9–7.5 × 10^21 atoms/cm^2, non-ram fluences of 3–5% of ram, an 8–10% LTAN-12 advantage, CFRP zenith erosion of 15.1–16.2 μm/yr, wedge-induced shielding of roughly an order of magnitude, internal PCB fluences up to 9.5 × 10^16 and 4.0 × 10^19 atoms/cm^2, and a 10–20% side-panel asymmetry attributed to HWM07 winds. A MISSE-8 comparison reproduces the zenith-to-ram ratio near 4% but predicts zero wake fluence, which the authors acknowledge as a limitation of ballistic ray tracing.

Significance. If the quantitative results are accepted, the framework is a useful design-stage tool: it moves beyond orbit-averaged fluence, couples established empirical atmosphere/wind models with ray tracing, and produces surface-resolved, material-specific erosion predictions. Strengths include the absence of any parameter fitted to the validation data, the explicit HWM07 on/off differential, and the honest acknowledgment of the wake-fluence limitation. However, the most novel quantitative outputs — internal PCB fluences and the magnitude of wind-induced side-panel asymmetry — rest on transport assumptions that the paper itself shows to be incomplete, and one of the supporting tables is internally inconsistent. The qualitative claim that geometry, orbit, winds, and material response must be considered together is well supported, but the specific numerical values should be treated as provisional until the uncertainties and inconsistencies are addressed.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3 (Cases 3–4), with §3.1.2] The internal PCB fluences (up to 9.5 × 10^16 and 4.0 × 10^19 atoms/cm^2/yr) are computed by ATOMOX ballistic ray tracing through housing openings. In §3.1.2 the paper reports that this transport model predicts zero wake fluence while MISSE-8 measured 1.9% of ram fluence, attributing the discrepancy to the ballistic assumption. The cavity-penetration paths use the same transport mechanism, so a real scattering or diffuse-reflection contribution could materially change the PCB numbers. No error bars, sensitivity analysis, or bounding test is provided. This is load-bearing because the internal-exposure finding is presented as a critical result; the authors should either bound the uncertainty, add a scattering/diffuse test, or substantially soften the quantitative claims.
  2. [Table 15] The wind-asymmetry claim is internally inconsistent. Tables 5 and 6 show -y exceeding +y by about 20% and 16%, respectively, while Table 15 (HWM07 enabled, LTAN 06:00, 12 months) lists +y = 3.02 × 10^20 and -y = 2.43 × 10^20, i.e., the opposite sign and a different magnitude. As printed, Table 15 undermines the stated 10–20% side-panel asymmetry conclusion. The authors must correct this inconsistency and verify the sign and magnitude across all tables before the wind effect can be considered established.
  3. [§3.1.2, Table 7] The MISSE-8 validation is selective: the zenith comparison uses the taped sample (4.24%) as agreement and discards the beveled-tray sample (0.87%) using qualitative holder-shielding reasoning. That explanation may be plausible, but it is not a quantitative validation because the same ray-tracing tool was not used to model the beveled tray, and the discarded sample is the one whose holder geometry actually resembles a real spacecraft protrusion. The claim of 'reproduction' should be framed as consistency with one sample, not as validation of the transport model for shadowed and cavity regions.
  4. [§2.1–§3 overall] All quantitative outputs are point predictions for fixed environmental and material inputs: F10.7 = 150, Ap = 15, fixed erosion yields, and an ATOMOX ray count mentioned only later in §3.4. The 8–10% LTAN difference, the 15.1–16.2 μm/yr CFRP erosion, and the internal PCB fluences all depend on these choices, and the erosion yields in particular carry substantial uncertainty in the underlying NASA/MISSE data. A sensitivity study or explicit uncertainty estimate is needed for the central quantitative claims, at least for F10.7 and CFRP erosion yield.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 13 caption] The caption states 'for the H-polarization configuration' but the table is for the V-pol configuration (Case 4).
  2. [Figure 16] A stray 'W' appears in the text immediately before 'Figure 16', apparently left over from editing.
  3. [§2.2 and §3.4] The ATOMOX setup is under-specified in the methods section: the ray count (2,000), mesh sizes, reflection model, and any surface-scattering assumptions are not described. Add these details, or state where the user-manual settings are documented.
  4. [§3.3.1] The sentence 'the difference in cumulative fluence between the LTAN 06:00 and LTAN 12:00 conditions was approximately 0.5 × 10^21 atoms/cm^2' is not clearly tied to a table or figure; please specify which surface and check the magnitude against Table 12.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: all derived quantities are propagated from external models, fixed material inputs, and an external flight-data check.

full rationale

The paper's quantitative outputs are propagated, not fitted. Atmospheric number density is from NRLMSISE-00; flux uses Eq. (1) with orbital relative velocity and HWM07 wind modification (Eqs. (2)-(3)); surface fluences are obtained by ATOMOX ballistic ray tracing over fixed geometries. Erosion depths are products of simulated fluence with fixed erosion yields taken from published NASA/MISSE databases (Table 4), so the CFRP vs MLI ranking follows from the assigned Ey values rather than being inferred from the outputs. The LTAN 8-10% difference is a direct consequence of the NRLMSISE-00 orbit-averaged densities in Table 3. The +y/-y asymmetry is traced to HWM07 by an explicit on/off simulation (Tables 14-15), not assumed. The MISSE-8 comparison uses external flight data and is not used to tune inputs; the paper explicitly reports the ballistic-model wake underprediction and discusses it as a limitation. No equation-level identity between inputs and predicted outputs, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation is present. Therefore this is a self-contained engineering assessment with no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes a case-study simulation, not a derivation. Its quantitative outputs rest on external empirical models, commercial ray-tracing settings, chosen material constants, and simplified geometry. Nothing is fitted to the validation data, but several hand-picked inputs (solar and geomagnetic indices, erosion yields, ray count) gate the headline numbers.

free parameters (6)
  • F10.7 solar radio flux index = 150
    Chosen as a moderate solar activity scenario; all AO densities and fluences scale with this input, with no sensitivity analysis.
  • Ap geomagnetic index = 15
    Chosen as moderate geomagnetic activity; affects NRLMSISE-00 densities and the resulting AO flux.
  • Erosion yield, MLI outer layer = 1.0e-26 cm3/atom
    Taken from the NASA/MISSE database with no exact material match; directly determines the ram-face erosion depth of 0.69-0.75 um/yr.
  • Erosion yield, CFRP solar-array panel = 5.6e-24 cm3/atom
    Input from the cited MISSE-16 result; drives the headline CFRP zenith erosion of 15.1-16.2 um/yr despite low fluence.
  • Erosion yield, aluminum antenna and wedge = 0 cm3/atom
    Assumed AO-resistant; makes antenna and wedge erosion zero. If the assumption is wrong, component rankings change.
  • ATOMOX ray count = 2000 rays
    Numerical setting for the ray-tracing Monte Carlo; authors estimate <1% numerical uncertainty, but no convergence study is shown.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption NRLMSISE-00 accurately represents AO density at 350 km for F10.7=150, Ap=15 over a full year starting January 2028.
    Section 2.1 uses the model as ground truth for the AO environment; no in-situ density validation is provided in this paper.
  • domain assumption HWM07 winds and the ATOMOX relative-velocity calculation (v_atm = v_wind - v_sc) correctly change the effective AO arrival direction.
    Section 3.4 attributes the 10-20% side-panel asymmetry to HWM07 on/off; if wind magnitudes or directions are wrong, the asymmetry magnitude changes.
  • domain assumption Ballistic ray tracing with complete blocking by the spacecraft body is adequate for fluence on ram, side, zenith, and internal-cavity surfaces.
    Section 3.1.2 acknowledges this assumption fails for the wake (predicted 0 vs MISSE-8 1.9%); internal PCB predictions depend on the same ray paths.
  • domain assumption Erosion yields from 'representative' MISSE materials apply to the actual spacecraft materials used in the models.
    Section 2.2 states that no exact material counterparts were available; all erosion-depth claims depend on this mapping.
  • domain assumption The spacecraft maintains a fixed nadir-pointing attitude with +x along ram for the entire year.
    Section 2.2 sets the attitude; real attitude changes or Sun-tracking would alter which surfaces receive AO.
  • domain assumption The simplified geometries (rectangular prism, CFRP panel as solar array, no coverglass details) capture the relevant AO exposure.
    Section 2.2 defines the models; real MLI seams, hinges, gaps, and coverglass stacks are not modeled, and opening dimensions are not specified.
  • domain assumption 2000 rays per simulation are sufficient for statistically converged fluence maps.
    Section 3.4 gives a rough <1% residual uncertainty estimate but no convergence test is shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Geometry resolved atomic oxygen risk assessment for very low earth orbit spacecraft." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XMYAKLNC

@misc{pith2026260725525,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Geometry resolved atomic oxygen risk assessment for very low earth orbit spacecraft},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XMYAKLNC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25525}
}
read the original abstract

Atomic oxygen (AO) is a major durability concern for spacecraft in very low Earth orbit (VLEO), yet orbit-averaged fluence does not resolve exposure on individual surfaces and internal components. This study develops a geometry-resolved AO assessment by coupling NRLMSISE-00, HWM07, and SYSTEMA ATOMOX. One-year simulations were performed for a 350 km circular Sun-synchronous orbit at LTAN 06:00 and 12:00 using a baseline spacecraft, a wedge-modified body, and two synthetic aperture radar antenna sub-arrays. The LTAN 12:00 orbit produced 8-10% higher orbit-averaged AO flux than LTAN 06:00. For the baseline geometry, the ram-facing surface accumulated 6.9-7.5 x 10^21 atoms/cm^2, whereas side and zenith/nadir surfaces received only 3-5% of the ram fluence. Material-specific erosion yields changed the component-level risk ranking: the CFRP zenith panel was predicted to erode by 15.1-16.2 um/year despite receiving much lower fluence than the ram-facing multilayer insulation. The wedge generated approximately one order of magnitude spatial variation through local shielding. Housing openings also allowed AO to reach internal printed circuit boards, with maximum annual fluences of 9.5 x 10^16 and 4.0 x 10^19 atoms/cm^2 in the H- and V-polarized antenna models, respectively. HWM07 winds produced 10-20% side-panel asymmetry, which decreased below 1% when winds were disabled. Comparison with MISSE-8 reproduced the measured zenith-to-ram ratio of approximately 4% but underpredicted wake exposure, identifying a limitation of ballistic ray tracing. These results demonstrate that VLEO AO durability requires coupled consideration of orbit, atmospheric winds, geometry, and material response.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25525 by the authors.

Figure 7
Figure 7. Schematic of the spacecraft coordinate system and AO exposure geometry for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Surface-specific AO exposure results for the Case 1 spacecraft in the LTAN 06:00 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Crisp, N.H., et al., The benefits of very low earth orbit for earth observation missions, Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 117 (2020) 100619

    2020

  2. [2]

    Nyamukondiwa, R., et al., VLEO Satellite Development and Remote Sensing: A Multidomain Review of Engineering, Commercial, and Regulatory Solutions, Aerospace 13(2) (2026) 121

    2026

  3. [3]

    Reddy, M.R., Effect of low earth orbit atomic oxygen on spacecraft materials, J. Mater. Sci. 30(2) (1995) 281–307

    1995

  4. [4]

    Banks, B.A., et al., Atomic oxygen effects on materials, NASA, Langley Research Center, NASA/SDIO Space Environmental Effects on Materials Workshop, Part 1, 1989

    1989

  5. [5]

    Mahmoud, W.M., Elfiky, D., Robaa, S.M., Elnawawy, M.S., Yousef, S.M., Atomic oxygen in low Earth orbits: A retrospective review study, Space Sci. Technol. 29(2) (2023) 32–44

    2023

  6. [6]

    Rea, S., Guida, M., Computational Degradation Analysis of Low Earth Orbit and Very Low Earth Orbit Spacecraft Structures due to Interaction with Atomic Oxygen, J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 2025

    2025

  7. [7]

    Goto, A., et al., Changes in optical properties of polymeric materials due to atomic oxygen in very low Earth orbit, Acta Astronautica 211 (2023) 1–10

    2023

  8. [8]

    Control Syst

    Canuto, E., Molano, A., Massotti, L., Drag-free control of the GOCE satellite: noise and observer design, IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 12(6) (2009) 866–879

    2009

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Allasio, A., Muzi, D., Vinai, B., Cesare, S., Catastini, G., Bard, M., Marque, J.P., GOCE: Space technology for the reference Earth gravity field determination, Proc. Eur. Conf. Aerosp. Sci. (EUCASS) 2009

    2009

  2. [10]

    Space Technol

    Kimoto, Y., et al., Analysis of upper atmospheric effects on material per onboard atomic oxygen monitor system of SLATS, Front. Space Technol. 3 (2022) 891753

    2022

  3. [11]

    SPIE 13546 (2025)

    Yamamoto, T., et al., Conceptual study of JAXA's VLEO platform: flight results of super low-altitude test satellite (SLATS), Proc. SPIE 13546 (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    de Groh, K.K., Banks, B.A., Atomic oxygen erosion data from the MISSE 2–8 missions, NASA/TM—2019-219982, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Koehler, C., Jasper, L., Kemble, K., Distributed Atmospheric Neutral Density Explorer (DANDE), Colorado Space Grant Consortium, University of Colorado Boulder, AFRL-SR- AR-TR-09-0272, 2009. 35

    2009

  6. [14]

    Serrano, M.A.M., et al., Aeolus orbit control strategy: Analysis and final implementation, Int. Symp. Space Flight Dyn., 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    3rd Annual Int

    de Groh, K.K., Jaworske, D.A., Pippin, G.H., Jenkins, P.P., Walters, R.J., Thibeault, S.A., Materials International Space Station Experiment (MISSE): Overview, accomplishments and future needs, Proc. 3rd Annual Int. Space Station R&D Conf., Chicago, IL, 2014

    2014

  8. [16]

    H., Roberts, P

    Crisp, N. H., Roberts, P. C. E., Livadiotti, S., Macario Rojas, A., Oiko, V. T. A., Edmondson, S., Haigh, S. J., Holmes, B. E. A., Sinpetru, L. A., Smith, K. L., Becedas, J., Domínguez, R. M., Sulliotti-Linner, V., Christensen, S., Nielsen, J., Bisgaard, M., Chan, Y.- A., Faso...

    2021

  9. [17]

    H., Roberts, P

    Crisp, N. H., Roberts, P. C. E., Hanessian, V., Sulliotti-Linner, V., Herdrich, G. H., García-Almiñana, D., Kataria, D., & Seminari, S. (2022). A method for the experimental characterisation of novel drag-reducing materials for very low Earth orbits using the Satellite for Orb...

    2022

  10. [18]

    H., Macario Rojas, A., Roberts, P., Edmondson, S., Haigh, S

    Crisp, N. H., Macario Rojas, A., Roberts, P., Edmondson, S., Haigh, S. J., Holmes, B. E. A., Oiko, V. T. A., Sinpetru, L. A., Smith, K. L., & et al. (in press). Experimental Results from the Satellite for Orbital Aerodynamics Research (SOAR) Mission. In 73rd International Astr...

  11. [19]

    K., Melbourne, W

    Wickert, J., Reigber, C., Beyerle, G., König, R., Marquardt, C., Schmidt, T., Grunwaldt, L., Galas, R., Meehan, T. K., Melbourne, W. G., & Hocke, K. (2001). Atmosphere sounding by GPS radio occultation: First results from CHAMP. Geophysical Research Letters, 28(17), 3263–3266

    2001

  12. [20]

    Yin, F. (2010). Mathematic approaches for the calibration of the CHAMP satellite magnetic field measurements [Doctoral dissertation, Universität Potsdam]. Institutional Repository of the University of Potsdam

    2010

  13. [21]

    5th AIAA Atmos

    Maldonado, C.A., Ketsdever, A.D., Rand, L., Xie, K., Farnell, C.C., Williams, J.D., Characterization of an atomic oxygen plasma source for ground-based simulation of the LEO neutral environment, Proc. 5th AIAA Atmos. Space Environ. Conf. (AIAA 2013-2681), 2013

    2013

  14. [22]

    Jiang, Y., et al., Aerodynamic drag analysis and reduction strategy for satellites in Very Low Earth Orbit, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 133 (2023) 108105

    2023

  15. [23]

    Schumm, G., et al., Calculation of the atomic oxygen fluence on the Van Allen Probes, J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys. 125(8) (2020) e2020JA027944

    2020

  16. [24]

    Picone, J.M., Hedin, A.E., Drob, D.P., Aikin, A.C., NRLMSISE‐00 empirical model of the atmosphere: Statistical comparisons and scientific issues, J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys. 107(A12) (2002) SIA-15

    2002

  17. [25]

    Issue 5, 2023

    Airbus Defence and Space, SYSTEMA ATOMOX user manual, Version 4.9.3, Doc. Issue 5, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Orbital Debris Conf., 2023

    Westrick, S.A., et al., Atomic Oxygen Impacts on Materials International Space Station Experiment (MISSE)-16 flight Samples, 2nd Int. Orbital Debris Conf., 2023. 36

    2023

  19. [27]

    K., Banks, B

    de Groh, K. K., Banks, B. A., Asmar, O. C., Yi, G. T., Mitchell, G. G., Guo, A., & Sechkar, E. A. (2017). Erosion results of the MISSE 8 polymers experiment after 2 years of space exposure on the International Space Station (NASA/TM-2017-219445). National Aeronautics and Space...

    2017

  20. [28]

    K., Banks, B

    de Groh, K. K., Banks, B. A., & McCarthy, C. E. (2014). Spacecraft polymers atomic oxygen durability handbook (NASA-HDBK-6024). National Aeronautics and Space Administration

    2014

  21. [29]

    Walsh, J.A., Berthoud, L., Distribution of Atomic Oxygen within the internal cavities of VLEO Satellites, 2023 IEEE Aerospace Conf., IEEE, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.